# New Ticket Created by Matt Diephouse
# Please include the string: [perl #39597]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=39597 >
The following code in lines 108-110 of languages/tcl/src/class/
tclcommand.pir are g
The "main" backend as I see it, in the near future, is definitely the
Perl 5 runtime for production use
Codegen to that runtime is probably going to be written in
Perl 5 in Pugs::Compiler::Perl6 space, although it may also happen at
Perl 6 space, Parrot space, or Haskell space. (The author-s
"Chris Yocum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi All,
> At the risk of sounding a bit thick, I have a couple of questions
> about Perl6's multi keyword and mutilmethod in general. This seems
> like overloaded functions from C++ so why do we need a key word to
> declare them rather than using so
Steffen Schwigon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> multi sub talk () { say 'Loose Talk Is Noose Talk.'; }
> multi sub talk (String $msg) { say $msg; }
> multi sub talk (String $msg, Int $times) { say $msg x $times; }
BTW, because we are just on-topic, can someone explain, when these
types above
> Multimethods are not just overloading as in C++.
To expand upon this point a little, you can use multimethods to do
pattern-matching in the style of ML and similar languages. So, to pinch
an example from the pugs tree (examples/functional/fp.p6)
multi sub length () returns Int { 0
Author: audreyt
Date: Fri Jun 23 07:55:16 2006
New Revision: 9717
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
* S06: Correct an extra comma in the comment:
for @foo, sub { ... }
should be written as
for @foo sub { ... }
if the sub is to be taken as the loop body.
Modified: doc/tru
On 6/23/06, Steffen Schwigon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steffen Schwigon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> multi sub talk () { say 'Loose Talk Is Noose Talk.'; }
> multi sub talk (String $msg) { say $msg; }
> multi sub talk (String $msg, Int $times) { say $msg x $times; }
BTW, because we are j
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 06:18:51PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> multi sub talk (String $msg1, String $msg2) { say "$msg1 $msg2" }
> multi sub talk (String $msg, Int $times) { say $msg x $times; }
> multi sub talk (String $msg, Num $times) { say "Please use an integer"; }
> multi sub talk (String $m
On 6/23/06, Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
An alternate interpretation would be that the last one is actually a compile-
time error because none of the sigs match (Int,Int) and for a call to
work with 2 Int parameters, you'd need to be explicit:
talk(~123,3);
But I'm not sure wh
audreyt++ pointed out on #parrot that there doesn't seem to be a way
to specify where to start finding lexicals, in support of perl's
OUTER::. eg. (from S04):
my $x = $OUTER::x;
or
my $x = OUTER::<$x>;
i propose this should be specified using a three-arg form of find_lex
where the third
# New Ticket Created by jerry gay
# Please include the string: [perl #39615]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=39615 >
tests exist for the get_outer op in t/op/lexicals.t, but i find no
mention of the op in do
On Friday 23 June 2006 00:04, Swaroop C H wrote:
> So, as of now, you envision svn:/pugs/misc/pX/Common/Pugs-Compiler-Perl6 to
> be the "main" engine for Perl 6 ?
I believe Audrey's point was that it is the most complete implementation right
now.
> If this is the case, is the purpose of the oth
Hi All,
I would like to thank everyone for their illuminating examples
and prose. This has cleared up understanding for me.
Thanks again,
Chris
On 6/23/06, Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/23/06, Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An alternate interpretation would
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 06:55:28PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> On 6/23/06, Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >An alternate interpretation would be that the last one is actually a
> >compile-
> >time error because none of the sigs match (Int,Int) and for a call to
> >work with 2 Int
Steffen Schwigon schrieb:
> At least the many keywords seem to be necessary to map the complexity
> of different paradigms possible in Perl6. Multimethods are not just
> overloading as in C++. Second, the different keywords declare
> different behaviour you can choose. Just read S06, it's explained
I'm sending this also to perl6-language, in case someone there knows
an answer to this.
On 6/23/06, Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think so. I think the "best candidate" prose is about
choosing from types that have been specified, not autoconverting
between types such tha
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 09:11:44PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> And what about other types?
> e.g. if String can't ever be "best candidate" for Int, then does that
> mean that neither can Int ever be "best candidate" for Num, because
> they are different types?
Well, I think Num and Int *aren't* d
在 2006/6/23 上午 9:50 時，chromatic 寫到：
On Friday 23 June 2006 00:04, Swaroop C H wrote:
So, as of now, you envision svn:/pugs/misc/pX/Common/Pugs-Compiler-
Perl6 to
be the "main" engine for Perl 6 ?
I believe Audrey's point was that it is the most complete
implementation right
now.
No, t
On Friday 23 June 2006 12:19, Audrey Tang wrote:
> Multiple implementations that are compatible to the spec, like the
> R5RS Scheme, are really a very good thing.
Only insofar as the spec is complete enough that an implementation that adds
nothing beyond that is useful and that there exists so
> "AT" == Audrey Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AT> Indeed. So instead of having the implementions define the language,
AT> this time around the specs, and tests, and API documentations, need
AT> to be adhered closely by implementors, which is why we're all talking
AT> together in #
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 08:27:04AM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
> audreyt++ pointed out on #parrot that there doesn't seem to be a way
> to specify where to start finding lexicals, in support of perl's
> OUTER::. eg. (from S04):
>my $x = $OUTER::x;
> or
>my $x = OUTER::<$x>;
So OUTER:: is a -st
On 6/23/06, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 08:27:04AM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
> audreyt++ pointed out on #parrot that there doesn't seem to be a way
> to specify where to start finding lexicals, in support of perl's
> OUTER::. eg. (from S04):
>my $x = $OUTE
On 6/23/06, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
indeed.
my $x = 3; { { say $OUTER::x} }# 3
of course that should be
my $x = 3; { { say $OUTER::OUTER::x} }# 3
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:16:22PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 08:27:04AM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
> > audreyt++ pointed out on #parrot that there doesn't seem to be a way
> > to specify where to start finding lexicals, in support of perl's
> > OUTER::. eg. (from S04):
>
jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
audreyt++ pointed out on #parrot that there doesn't seem to be a way
to specify where to start finding lexicals, in support of perl's
OUTER::. eg. (from S04):
my $x = $OUTER::x;
or
my $x = OUTER::<$x>;
i propose this should be specified using a thr
在 2006/6/23 下午 1:31 時，Patrick R. Michaud 寫到：
I interpret the first sentence as meaning that the "MY" pseudo-package
refers to all of the symbols in the current lexical scope, not
just those that have been explicitly declared in the current scope
using "my".
Same interpretation here, as S02 say
在 2006/6/22 下午 12:37 時，Andy Dougherty 寫到：
One other oddity: You can't run the test file twice without
cleaning up
the generated .tc files first. Specifically:
$ perl -Ilib 01-sanity/01-tap.t
[ works ]
$ perl -Ilib 01-sanity/01-tap.t
Unmatched right curly bracket at 01-sani
via RT Matt Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Matt Diephouse
# Please include the string: [perl #39597]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=39597 >
The following code in lines 108-110
28 matches
Mail list logo
